NAIROBI: A high-stakes political battle over the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Medium-Term Strategy (MTS) is set to dominate the opening of the seventh UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-7) in Nairobi commencing on Monday, with member states divided on whether the organisation’s next five-year mandate should be renegotiated or adopted as is.
In an interaction with journalists ahead of the Assembly, Martin Krause, Director of UNEP’s Climate Change Division, told TNIE discussions on the 2026–2030 MTS, which defines UNEP’s global agenda across climate, biodiversity, pollution and land degradation, remain “fluid”, with intense behind-the-scenes bargaining over language and scope.
“It is very fluid, you know, they met yesterday in the afternoon for informals. It is unclear at this moment where this will go. It is fluid, you know, there is a lot of work behind the scenes to find a common ground on certain terminology and language that some countries are opposing,” Krause said.
The big question is, should the MTS and all of that be opened up actually for negotiation, for introducing new language, new paragraphs, or is it as it is?
The stakes could not be higher. The MTS is effectively UNEP’s operating licence that determines programmatic priorities, unlocks budget approval and ensures coherence across its global work. “This is the world telling UNEP what to do. Without endorsement, we cannot operate,” Krause stressed. The outcome, likely to hinge on ministerial interventions next week, will shape UNEP’s trajectory for the next half decade.
“Because, you know, do not forget there was a period of 15 months of consultations preceding this moment where we are right now. And at some point, you also have to close it, you cannot go on and on and on,” he added.
While navigating this strategic uncertainty, UNEP is also wrestling with a significant funding crunch. Krause confirmed that UNEP’s regular budget allocation from New York suffered a 20% reduction, largely due to the United States’ decision to halt payments to the UN and similar reductions by other contributors.
More substantial is the hit to the Environment Fund (EF), which is UNEP’s primary, voluntary but formula-based source of core funding. “The US contributed around 7% to the EF, and that has fallen away. Combined with reductions from others, we are looking at an 11–12% drop,” he said. This fund covers staff salaries, programmatic support and global coordination — making its decline structurally damaging.
UNEP is increasingly reliant on extra-budgetary pledges from donor governments and on resources mobilised from the Green Climate Fund and Global Environment Facility.
UNEA-7 will also open with a slimmer agenda of resolutions than expected. Of the 19 draft resolutions initially submitted, four were withdrawn before negotiations formally began, including Bolivia’s proposal, which could not secure adequate backing. “All 15 remaining resolutions are technically alive, but some are on life support,” Krause observed.
Still, UNEP hopes certain issues — notably wildfires, proposed by India and glacier protection — will gain political traction if their resolutions survive the week. “A resolution elevates a topic; it gets media and political attention and can trigger action,” he said.
Karen Landmark, managing director at GRID-Arendal, told TNIE: “UNEA is the only place where the triple-planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution are addressed together, and therefore also the place where we can achieve synergistic and integrated solutions. In a more challenging geopolitical context, it is crucial that ambitious countries maintain momentum and agree on bold resolution and a robust Medium-Term Strategy 2026-2029, and enable UNEP to deliver on its mandates, putting the health of the planet and its people before national self-interest.”
Andres Del Castillo, Senior Attorney, CIEL, while talking to TNIE said, “The draft decision on UNEP’s Medium-Term Strategy for 2026–2029 remains heavily bracketed, even after a weekend of informal talks. Delegates say the stalemate may reflect some level of mistrust in UNEP and efforts by some countries to narrow, rather than support, the agency’s core mandate."
"Several proposals aim to scale back references to human rights, the full lifecycle approach to tackling plastic pollution, and UNEP’s role in the ongoing negotiations for a plastics treaty. Although is true that the INC should remain a country driven process,. We warn that no decision should be used to justify delaying early action against the escalating plastic pollution crisis, especially as negotiations are already under way toward a binding treaty,” he added.
Christina Dixon from Environmental Investigation Agency noted, “This UNEA faces undeniable strain. Tight budgets, deeply polarised negotiations and important resolutions hanging by a thread. But this challenge also underscores the urgency of our work in tackling environmental issues at the global level. In a situation where we are told we can't even use the words environmental crime in a resolution on that topic the very fabric of multilateralism is at stake with these negotiations. We urge member states to meet this moment with the urgency it commands.”
As delegates arrive in Nairobi, the Assembly convenes at a moment of shrinking fiscal space, institutional strain and geopolitical fragmentation. Whether countries can agree on UNEP’s strategic direction and restore confidence in multilateral environmental governance will define the tone of the next five years.